Illinois FOIA Says Your Request Is “Unduly Burdensome”: What to Do
Sources checked October 16, 2026.
A public body may sometimes deny a request as unduly burdensome, but a broad request does not automatically justify a denial. Illinois FOIA sets a specific test and requires the public body to give you a chance to confer and narrow the request before denying it on that ground. A vague suggestion to “be more specific” may not satisfy that duty. Preserve the request, proof of delivery, response, and dates, then ask for the body’s concrete explanation and propose a manageable scope.
This guide covers ordinary Illinois FOIA requests. Commercial-purpose, recurrent-requester, and voluminous-request rules can change the analysis. The Public Access Counselor (PAC) also cannot review some matters, including whether an ordinary commercial-purpose request was properly denied. Read the statute and the PAC instructions for your situation; this guide is general information, not legal advice.
What the law requires
Under 5 ILCS 140/3(g), a request for all records within a category must be fulfilled unless compliance would be unduly burdensome, there is no way to narrow the request, and the burden on the public body outweighs the public interest in the information. Before invoking that provision, the body must offer you an opportunity to confer about reducing the request to manageable proportions. If it denies a categorical request on that ground, its written response must specify why compliance would be unduly burdensome and how it would burden the body’s operations. The section also addresses repeated requests for unchanged or identical records previously supplied or properly denied.
The law does not set a page-count cutoff. A body’s estimate of staff time or search results can matter, but the estimate should be considered with the request’s subject, likely public interest, available search methods, and possible narrowing. Nor does the statute require you to know the agency’s internal filing system before you can describe records. The facts and the wording of the request matter.
Read the response for a real chance to confer
Save the complete response and note when you received it. Ask whether the body has denied the request or is inviting a discussion before deciding. A conference can happen by email or phone; the key is a genuine chance to work through options before a final denial. Keep a written record of any call and promptly confirm proposed search terms, custodians, date ranges, record types, or batches by email.
Section 3(g) requires more than a conclusory statement that the request is “too broad.” Ask the body to identify what part creates the claimed burden, what search or review it anticipates, and what narrower version it believes could be handled. You can request an estimate or explanation without conceding that the original request meets the statutory test.
The PAC’s decisions illustrate how context matters:
- In binding Opinion 16-008 (City of Collinsville), the request sought emails between a city manager and a planning firm for about a month. The city identified about 174 pages and estimated a few hours of work by two employees. The PAC concluded the city had not shown by clear and convincing evidence that the burden outweighed the public interest and directed production.
- In binding Opinion 18-013 (Office of the Governor), the requester narrowed the categories of records and boards sought. The Governor’s Office initially cited more than 44,000 potentially responsive emails, but a more targeted search using “appoint” identified 1,783 potentially responsive emails. The PAC found the narrowed request was not shown to be unduly burdensome and directed production, subject to appropriate redactions.
- In binding Opinion 21-001 (Chicago Police Department), a reporter sought subpoenas and search warrants received during one month. The department cited thousands of subpoenas and denied without engaging with the reporter’s repeated efforts to confer. The PAC found a violation for failing to fulfill the duty to confer and also concluded the department had not established its burden claim; it directed disclosure of the responsive subpoenas.
- In binding Opinion 23-007 (Chicago Department of Planning and Development), the requester sought emails about a specifically identified city property using several address and project terms and a stated time frame. The department demanded employee names or email addresses and denied the request. The PAC concluded the requester had reasonably described the emails and the department had not shown that compliance would be unduly burdensome; it directed a search and disclosure subject to permissible redactions.
These decisions are examples, not a guarantee of how the PAC or a court will decide another request. The records, search systems, time periods, evidence, and public interest differ from case to case.
Offer a narrower version that still answers your question
Think about what information you actually need and suggest a first manageable slice. Useful limits may include:
- a shorter date range tied to a known event, meeting, contract, or decision;
- a specific project, property, vendor, policy, subject, or set of search terms;
- a few record types, such as emails, invoices, contracts, or meeting packets;
- known officials or offices, if you know them; and
- production in stages, starting with an index, a sample, or the most relevant period.
You generally do not have to identify particular employee accounts to reasonably describe emails about a particular subject. Still, if the body identifies likely custodians or explains that a targeted search would help, you can include them as a practical narrowing choice. Do not guess at names if you do not know them; ask the body which custodians or search options it proposes.
Here is a template you can adapt:
Subject: Confer and narrow FOIA request dated [date]
Dear FOIA Officer:
I received your response dated [date] stating that my request may be unduly burdensome. I would like to confer under 5 ILCS 140/3(g) before any denial. Please explain which portion of the request creates the burden, the search or review work anticipated, and what narrower scope you believe would be manageable.
To move this forward, I propose beginning with [record type or subject], for [date range], using [known terms or criteria]. If responsive records are numerous, I am open to staged production, starting with [first segment]. Please let me know whether this scope is workable or suggest a specific adjustment. This proposal is intended to facilitate a response and does not withdraw my original request unless we agree otherwise in writing.
Thank you, [Name]
You may also ask for electronic copies, inspection, or a first installment if that would reduce copying or review work. Narrowing does not mean you must accept an exemption, a fee that FOIA does not authorize, or an indefinite delay. Confirm any agreement about a revised scope or response schedule in writing.
If the body denies the request
Ask for a written final response that identifies the claimed operational interference, explains why the burden clearly outweighs the public interest, and addresses the opportunity to confer and any narrowing you proposed. Keep the original request and every version of the discussion together. If the body released some records, identify what remains outstanding and ask whether nonexempt portions can be produced; a burdensome-request denial is distinct from a record-by-record exemption.
You can seek PAC review of whether a request was improperly classified as unduly burdensome. Under section 9.5, submit a signed written Request for Review within 60 calendar days after the final denial. Attach the request, proof of delivery if available, the denial, and the conference correspondence. Explain what records remain at issue, why you believe section 3(g) was not met, and what opportunity to narrow you were given or requested. Use the Attorney General’s FOIA review instructions and Request for Review form. The PAC process has limits, including for ordinary commercial-purpose denials, so check section 9.5 before filing.
A separate, narrower request can sometimes obtain useful records sooner, but it does not automatically preserve or extend the deadline to challenge the original denial. If you want PAC review, do not wait for a new request or an informal follow-up to resolve the original dispute. Section 11 also provides for judicial review; consider legal advice about deadlines, venue, costs, and how a pending PAC matter affects a court case.
For a general denial, exemption, or partial-release dispute, see When an Illinois FOIA request is denied. If the body did not respond at all, see No response to an Illinois FOIA request. The FOIA Request for Review builder can help organize information, but it does not file a request for you.
The statute and official PAC materials control if a summary or template differs from them. This guide is general information about Illinois FOIA, not legal advice.